4 ms·

The point is we are not in a position to know what is outside our frame of reference either way. Strict atheism asserts there is no god with the same lack of e

The point is we are not in a position to know what is outside our frame of reference either way. Strict atheism asserts there is no god with the same lack of evidence that religious people believe that there is. Of course many atheists will point to some specific religious belief as being unlikely without evidence, but that is a strawman argument that comes down to the semantic question of defining "god" narrowly enough to make it seem absurd and unlikely. The larger question is whether the observable universe is the end-all-be-all of existence, and that is a philosophical question which outspans the reaches of the scientific method. One can assume Materialism and reject Dualism—many do because they find it silly to consider unanswerable questions and prefer to assume a deterministic universe which could theoretically be fully understood from our meat sack bodies given enough time and resources—but unfortunately this belief is based on faith; it can not be proven anymore than the Halting problem can be solved.

Nursie 5y ago
> Strict atheism asserts there is no god with the same lack of evidence that religious people believe that there is. Which is why you'll meet almost nobody that's a 'strict' atheist by that definition, and I'm afraid that I think this is a straw man, much more than the accusation you level in the following sentence - > Of course many atheists will point to some specific religious belief as being unlikely without evidence, but that is a strawman Not when they are actually closely held beliefs. What do you think it the proportion of religious people that have closely examined their beliefs in a philosophical manner and found an unanswerable question and recognised Dualism in their outlook? Because in my experience of religious people, their beliefs have been every bit as literal as the ones the atheists lambast and which you write off as a straw man. It's the philosophically minded apologists that are the rarity.
lmm 5y ago
> Of course many atheists will point to some specific religious belief as being unlikely without evidence, but that is a strawman argument that comes down to the semantic question of defining "god" narrowly enough to make it seem absurd and unlikely. The larger question is whether the observable universe is the end-all-be-all of existence, and that is a philosophical question which outspans the reaches of the scientific method. Anything that it would make sense to call "god" - and certainly anything that would have a particular interest in what some jumped-up apes on an utterly insignificant little blue green planet orbiting a small unregarded yellow sun out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy thought about anything - is absurd and unlikely. There may well be unknown entities, but they would almost certainly be no more godlike than any other object or force of nature we've encountered.
- dasil003 5y ago
  > Anything that it would make sense to call "god" Here's the crux: What would make sense to call "god"? What would make sense to call "a higher power"? Personally, if there is any consciousness that exists on a different level than our immediately observable universe perhaps with a radically different relationship to space-time, I believe two things are true: 1) it's nature is likely to be so far beyond our understanding that we don't have the precepts to even begin to reason about it and 2) it definitely makes sense to consider such an entity in those terms regardless of whether it has a particular interest in earth-life or not. Again, this is the semantic game that we play. It's easy to set up these strawmen based on our inherent anthropocentrism combined with past mythologies created to explain things which science subsequently provided better explanations for. However it is a huge leap to look at that progress and jump to the conclusion that our perspective is the one true lens on reality and that there is nothing beyond the reach of our instruments, logic and models.
  - lmm 5y ago
    If you say "god" you inherently bring in all the baggage of that anthropocentrism and past mythologies; that is the normal everyday meaning of the word, after all.
burnished 5y ago
I want to point out that you at no point address the question. It is a simple question, and it is not a trick. Your tangent feels like an attempt at what-aboutism.

Nursie 5y ago

> Strict atheism asserts there is no god with the same lack of evidence that religious people believe that there is. Which is why you'll meet almost nobody that's a 'strict' atheist by that definition, and I'm afraid that I think this is a straw man, much more than the accusation you level in the following sentence - > Of course many atheists will point to some specific religious belief as being unlikely without evidence, but that is a strawman Not when they are actually closely held beliefs. What do you think it the proportion of religious people that have closely examined their beliefs in a philosophical manner and found an unanswerable question and recognised Dualism in their outlook? Because in my experience of religious people, their beliefs have been every bit as literal as the ones the atheists lambast and which you write off as a straw man. It's the philosophically minded apologists that are the rarity.

lmm 5y ago

> Of course many atheists will point to some specific religious belief as being unlikely without evidence, but that is a strawman argument that comes down to the semantic question of defining "god" narrowly enough to make it seem absurd and unlikely. The larger question is whether the observable universe is the end-all-be-all of existence, and that is a philosophical question which outspans the reaches of the scientific method. Anything that it would make sense to call "god" - and certainly anything that would have a particular interest in what some jumped-up apes on an utterly insignificant little blue green planet orbiting a small unregarded yellow sun out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy thought about anything - is absurd and unlikely. There may well be unknown entities, but they would almost certainly be no more godlike than any other object or force of nature we've encountered.

dasil003 5y ago
> Anything that it would make sense to call "god" Here's the crux: What would make sense to call "god"? What would make sense to call "a higher power"? Personally, if there is any consciousness that exists on a different level than our immediately observable universe perhaps with a radically different relationship to space-time, I believe two things are true: 1) it's nature is likely to be so far beyond our understanding that we don't have the precepts to even begin to reason about it and 2) it definitely makes sense to consider such an entity in those terms regardless of whether it has a particular interest in earth-life or not. Again, this is the semantic game that we play. It's easy to set up these strawmen based on our inherent anthropocentrism combined with past mythologies created to explain things which science subsequently provided better explanations for. However it is a huge leap to look at that progress and jump to the conclusion that our perspective is the one true lens on reality and that there is nothing beyond the reach of our instruments, logic and models.
- lmm 5y ago
  If you say "god" you inherently bring in all the baggage of that anthropocentrism and past mythologies; that is the normal everyday meaning of the word, after all.

burnished 5y ago

I want to point out that you at no point address the question. It is a simple question, and it is not a trick. Your tangent feels like an attempt at what-aboutism.